CLIMATE CHANGE: JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM

The framing of the climate change debate has become quasi-religious. You are either a climate denier or a climate alarmist.

Like our political debate, camps have become polarised and no one is allowed to cross the line. Witness social media. You are either a Gillard barracker or an Abbott disciple, and you just ignore any evidence that may fog the rose-coloured view of your hero.

As it is in the Parliament, so it is in climate debate.

In rural Australia and in metropolitan Oz, you will find believers and non-believers. People who work in and with the climate every day cannot agree.

So how do Mr and Ms Average make sense of this debate?

The facts, ma’am, provide the lifeboat to which I cling.

If the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are telling me the overwhelming weight of evidence comes down overwhelmingly on the side of a warming planet, hell, who am I to argue.

Today the Climate Commission is releasing the Extreme Weather Report, which draws on the latest research from CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Australia’s top climate scientists from Australian universities, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meterology make up the Climate Commission’s expert Science Advisory Panel and reviewed the report.

They are agreed: Australian climate has, in some cases, changed for good.

Speaking to The Hoopla this morning, the Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the report showed climate change was already having an impact on Australia’s climate and it proved the Government’s emissions trading scheme was essential for future generations.

He said while there was a consensus among climate scientists about the reality of climate change, there were still vested interests in society who did not want to acknowledge the link between greenhouse gas emissions and the warming of the planet.

“Some in industries who use a lot of coal fired power don’t like having a price attached to carbon… in the same way those in the asbestos and tobacco industries did not want to acknowledge a link to their products.”

He said since the carbon price of $23 a tonne was introduced on the top 350 polluters on July 1 last year, carbon emissions had dropped in the first six months of the scheme by 8.6 percent compared to the same six months in 2011.

“There is a concentrated international effort to rein in greenhouse gases and our carbon price mechanism will become internationally linked. I met with China last week and they are starting pilot (emissions trading) schemes and will introduce a national scheme in 2015.

“It is happening around the world.

“(An ETS) is creating a cost for putting pollution into the atmosphere and we are using that money to compensate families through tax cuts and family tax benefits.”

Climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of many extreme events with significant risks for Australians.

Australia’s southeast, including many of our largest population centres, stands out as being at increased risk from many extreme weather events.

Key food-growing regions across the southeast and the southwest are likely to experience more droughts in the future.

There is a high risk that extreme weather like heatwaves, heavy rainfall, bushfires, droughts and cyclones will become even more severe over the coming decades, increasing the risks of adverse consequences to human health, agriculture, infrastructure and the environment.

Only strong preventative action, reducing greenhouse gas emissions deeply and swiftly, can gradually halt the trend to more extreme weather.

According to the report, the Millenium Drought (1997-2009) was the mother of all droughts in white Australian history.

As it happens, it pretty well covered my first dozen years of farm life. Our daughter was born in 1997 and like the cliche, my son, a 1999 drop, still gets excited enough to sit and watch when it rains.

At a child’s fourth birthday, the party girl unwrapped an umbrella and stared. “What is it?” she asked.

Sheep were selling at $5 each compared with an average of $50 now. My husband spent most of the year with a feed cart, dribbling out very expensive grain as they rushed like thousands of hungry dogs. In ordinary times, sheep scatter as you walk towards them. In those days, they ran towards you in the hope of food.

Since 2009, the land has recovered and we have had a few wet years. With the optimism that only a farmer can muster, my husband talks wistfully about getting back to a “normal year”. I remind him, after nearly 20 years on the farm, I am still waiting for a normal year.

Last summer was a particularly brutal one for those of us living on the land, as outlined by the Climate Commission’s previous report, The Angry Summer.

There were floods, bushfires and heatwaves that would kill a brown dog. My bushfire captain husband went off to the grass fires all around us that were feeding on increased fuel loads from heavy rain. And while a lot of old timers would say it is all just part of the cycle, there does seem to be a new normal.

For me, the bottom line is if we accept the evidence of climate change, if we go with the economic restructuring that China, Europe, and many other regions are now putting into place, if we head down the renewable route and embrace sustainable energy – there is much less downside.

Maybe climate change will not turn out to be as bad as the Climate Commission predicts. But if it does, will we be too far down the track to turn the ship around?MORE ARTICLES BY GABRIELLE CHAN

*Gabrielle Chan is The Hoopla’s political correspondent. She is a journalist and author with more than 25 years experience, having worked most recently as a regular columnist with The Australian. She has previously worked for The Daily Telegraph, the ABC and the South China Morning Post. Gabrielle has written and edited Flickers of History, War On Our Doorstep and FEAST and is a member of the NSW Anzac Advisory Council. She blogs at www.gabriellechan.com and you can follow her on Twitter: @gabriellechan.

73 Comments

Gee

The countless billions that have been wasted on this hoax could have been funneled into ACTUAL environmental benefits. It was begun by WWF to make money from the *unendagered* polar bears and then perpetuated by opportunists.

The weak minded have given rise to the CSG disaster, the death of 39 million birds from wind turbines and the murder of poor farmers as their land is used for single species carbon scams.

Enough is enough. The game is up. I want REAL environmental issues addressed.

And I want every cent that has been given to Tim Flannery returned to the tax payers.

Kylie

Wow, Gee. You are so full of bull that i’m suprised you don’t moo.
Polar bears ARE endangered. There are so few left now that their genetic diversity will NEVER recover and they are probably doomed to extinction. Especially as the rates of ice cap melting as measure this year were 5x higher that the worst case scenario predicted by climate change experts.
As for birds, i’m sure that most of them avoid the turbines, they aren’t stupid.
Farmer’s don’t HAVE to plant all one kind of tree either. They will still get carbon credits from native mixed stands but the tree growth is slower which is why they plant single species stands instead. I agree that we could improve this however by adding increased monetary incentives for farmers to plant mixed stands that will make them competative with single species stands.
I’m not saying we are doing everything right, just that doing nothing will acheive nothing. And I for one would like a habitable planet in 50 years.

Gee, you are talking gobbledegook.
Weak minded, opportunists, scams, murder?
Give it away.
I heard Tim Flannery on radio this morning talking absolute sense on climate change. The message: So much damage can’t be undone, so we cannot let this get any worse.
His message on the positives was good too – we are about to install the millionth solar panel in Australia.
He said he could not have imagined that even ten years ago.
If Tony Abbott dismantles the Carbon tax, he will be doing so just as so many other countries are moving towards setting up their own – including China.
It would be plain idiotic.

Tony Abbott was also on radio this morning, virtually promising to sack Prof Flannery when his party wins the election. He is not the type of leader we need when facing the future.
(Actually on a lot of things, not just climate change)

Gee wiz

There is no debate. The problem is simply that there are a number of people who are too stupid and/or ignorant to realise quite how stupid and/or ignorant they are. Sometimes a little bit of knowledge (as found by a google search) is a dangerous thing. How many climate change deniers have read the scientific literature on climate change? How many actually understand it?

Sal

I think that part of the problem is the term “Climate change debate”. It’s not a debate. It hasn’t been a debate in the scientific literature for many years. It’s only the popular media that use this term.

Georgia

Science is united in its opinion that our use of fossil fuels, animal agriculture and other high GHG-emitting activities is contributing to a rate of warming that we and other life forms will not adapt quickly enough to to live life as we know it. In fact a business-as-usual approach will be catastrophic. Yet we have the alternative energy sources – the planet is abundant with energy. If science was agreed about something that did not intersect with what can be sold for profit or require a change in lifestyle there would be almost no public discussion. This issue has been highjacked by the right-wing media. It is a wonderful time to be alive because we have the means and technology to transition to clean, sustainable energy sources from the sun (the biggest nuclear fusion reactor we will ever need), wind, tidal, geothermal etc. These next 10 years are gonna be fantastic – less pollution, affordable self-generated energy, electric cars and bikes it is an energy revolution we had to have

Sal

Gee, instead of doing a Google search which can turn up any kind of rubbish (you do know that anyone can post anything they like on the internet?), try searching the scientific literature. You’ll find plenty of evidence of polar bear decline. All information is not equal.

carole/m

Where are the young , why aren’t they out in the streets demonstrating against Abbott ” trashing ”
carbon pricing ?? It’s their future .

Gabrielle,
Why do farmers vote for the National Party which acts against their best interest .
It seems to me that many have much to gain from carbon capture , wind farms etc. & much to lose from the effects of increasing climate change & extreme weather.

Their are now more than 50 countries & sub national jurisdictions who have introduced carbon pricing mechanisms, including California ,which has an economy larger than the whole of Australia , also Sth Africa , Vietnam , Norway, Iceland , New Zealand , parts of Canada , 27 countries in the Euro Zone etc etc.
If we allow Abbott to ” trash ” carbon pricing we should hang our heads in shame.

janet

Jim Scott

Nancye

I have no certainty about climate change, coming from a line of farmers who say there have always been and always will be droughts and flooding plains. However I do believe that we have selfishly mismanaged our beautiful planet, poured all manner of crapulous substances into earth and atmosphere and totally disregarded its creatures. Anything we can do to address such capriciousness has to have a positive effect, whether on climate or environment. In a sense it doesn’t matter whether you are a sceptic or a believer start doing things that help the planet

Jenny

Nancye, you have expressed my feelings so precisely! Thank you! My argument for a long time is that we have used resources in a never-ending pursuit of “economic growth”, “progress”, and political advantage which is unsustainable. What gives us the right to use up the planet for selfish purposes, while leaving it the poorer for future generations? That has always seemed wrong to me, regardless of climate change fears. The anti-change propaganda is coming (via the media, of course) from those with a vested interest in not having to alter their established business practises and thereby reducing their profits and/or lifestyle.

Helen g

As long as governments are ruled by truly faceless giants, the oil companies and coal companies, change will not and cannot come quickly. We will never know the truth about anything, as long as greed for the almighty dollar, exists. Such a beautiful planet….from which the human race takes takes takes… And we are continually subliminally programmed by these multi national companies, to not only want, but need what they can sell us.

liza

Unfortunately many young are not out on the streets because they do not get Climate Change. The whole thing has been poorly sold. I mean Telling us that 2 degrees warmer will stuff the planet. Tasmania loves an extra 2 degrees.
Of course Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Bros are also instrumental in dumbing down societies .Feed people on enough lies and they believe it.

Lindy

I’m a Tasmanian and do not want an extra 2 degrees and all that it will bring. We do have cold winters, beautiful clear Autumn and Spring days and a mild Summer and I don’t want it to change. 2 degrees does not equate to warmer days, we have rising sea levels, more bushfires, species at risk etc.etc., this is not just about temperature

NarelleM

The climate is changing, there are no ifs, buts, or maybes, regardless of what moronic fools such as Gee keep trotting out.

I too live on a farm (cattle), and it is so damned obvious things ain’t what they used to be. This past summer we had an extreme heat; we had 3 months of weeks on end with 44+ degrees only lowering to an occasional 37 for a day or two before venturing back up into the 40’s.

Tim Flannery is a man with so much expertise to offer, and hey Gee maybe you should stop Googling every answer directly from Andrew Bolt. Murdoch, Bolt, Jones, Smith, Ackerman, Hadley, et al, all fools with no idea except let’s put a dickhead in the Lodge, ’cause he’s our mate.

Countries across the globe are aware that humans are contributing to temperature rise and are commencing their own Carbon Schemes. We are so lucky to have a PM that understands what’s going on and will put legislation in place to keep Australia at the forefront.

gee

Narelle, Flannery said that Sydney is about to be inundated but then bought s riverside property on our biggest river. He also said that our dams would never fill again and the idiot labor government believed him and spent a billion dollars on the white elephant desalination plant. Flannery is an idiot of the highest order.

Jim Scott

Flannery is no fool Gee. River levels will only rise on those sections close to the ocean levels i.e. the estuary areas, or if there are floods which in the South East of the continent is less likely than now because as the science shows it will be getting getting less rain.
So you see Gee it would seem in this case you and Andrew Bolt are the fools.

Nel Matheson

If one looks at the science, the impact of human beings and their industry has changed our little blue planet. How, we are yet to find out. It’s very important that our leaders, of either political pursuasion, recognise the need to be engaged in the global initiatives designed to tackle the challenges to come in the future.

David

helen b

Yes, Gabrielle. You are right about gambling with our future. Who will pay the price.

Well said Narelle M! Not much I can add to that, except…why is there this current need to argue the point with knowledgeable ‘experts’!

What is wrong with people who won’t accept the huge body of research built up to support the reality of climate change? What is the source of validity for their arguments?
And who the hell do they think they are in supporting the environmental decline of this planet?

I feel as though we’re back in the times when the arguments/beliefs raged around whether the earth was flat or round!!!

Carole/m – I think the young people are protesting through social media/internet/global affiliations plus plenty are taking personal responsibility in their own world. Not all, mind you. The street protests won’t happen till backs are to the wall…like Europe and the austerity measures, which of course, is about money.

The greed factor is definitely our greatest problem. The fire in the belly wanting change socially, economically etc is just not as strong as the 60’s. Everyone’s too comfortable to protest.

Garry

Gee, Gee, you have stirred up a hornets’ nest!
Prof Flannery also predicted that Brisbane would rune out of water. The next two summers they had problems with records floods! Perhaps God is telling us something! It is not science telling us anything, it is the way that science is interpreted. No monetary grants are given to disprove “global warming”, only research to prove the point is funded.
Australia has had severe droughts (e.g. 1880s) and perishing floods (1890s, 1950s). Climate isn’t changing, it is cycling.
However, I admire the faith of those who believe in warming and the extent that they go to to preach their religion.
Were we Christians so eager, the world would be a much better place!

Sandy

Gaz you’re a hoot. You have no trouble believing in The Sky Fairy, but reject science. The scaredy pants fruit and nut jobs who reject human made climate change tend to make the same arguments such as, well it’s a cold day in summer, therefore, this is proof that global warming does not exist. They are incapable of forward thinking. They are unconcerned about future generations, which nicely falls into line with right wing politics. I’m all right Jack, f**k you and your grandchildren! They also tend to be woo woo conspiracy theorist nutters who believe that the guvmints of the world made the whole thing up to collect more taxes from its citizens. I would love for these idiots to be right, but to date not ONE has provided any evidence whatsoever to dispel the science that is overwhelmingly agreed upon by the most emminent scientists ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Jim Scott

Flannery just like the IPCC and CSIRO has stated that the SW of Western Australia would suffer large reductions in rainfall while the North East of Australia would get increases in rainfall. Both of those predictions are now seen to be true. It is important to check wether Flannery made the statement about Brisbane getting drier or if it was in fact Andrew Bolt or other lobbyists who have attributed the statement to Flannery. They often make such untrue claims to undermine his scientific credibility.

lou51

I am a Climate change sceptic – as I believe it is cycling. BUT I do believe we should be a cleaner society so NOT anti cleaning up our act.
20 years ago a State Government tried taking 100 acres of “Bush” from our 500 acres – they claimed it had “Rare and Endangered Species”. We were unable to find these “Rare and Endangered Species” so employed an Environmental Engineer – who said we were right there was none of the species on the rare & endangered list in our bush – just every day bush. We were a bit confused, as to why this Government was so stuck on getting this bush – he informed us that in the future Governments would sell credits (attached to all State Bush) to off set big Business carbon. We were totally bewildered – never heard of such a thing.
Approximately 5 years ago I wrote to Prof Garnaut and Penny Wong – saying I was quite happy to pay extra for Electricity but I could not see that would fix Carbon Emissions, and was there a plan to get rid of Coal fired power stations and move to more environmental kind generation, also would we stop Coal exports ie “put our money where are mouths are” – neither responded.
2 years ago I wrote to Tony Windsor and Greg Combet – stating again I was quite happy to pay more for Electricity but would they supply me with a programme where Coal Fired Power stations would be decommissioned etc – neither responded.
SO I do wonder about it all!

Sal

carole/m

Scientists & Governments all around the world agree that drastic action is needed to reduce excess carbon in the atmosphere . The argument has already been won , hence the Kyoto Agreement & Governments everywhere taking action with carbon trading schemes & clean energy programs etc. Doesn’t matter if you agree or not , it’s happening & can only be beneficial to the health of the Planet.

Governments around the world are working in a bi-partisan manner except it would seem here in Oz .
Here in the “Lucky Country ” , with the highest incomes , excellent Social Welfare , best living conditions , well, we’ve got Tony Abbott & the LNP
These people are guilty of massive hypocrisy & political opportunism . There only reason for ” Trashing ” carbon pricing as set up by the Labor Government ( in spite of the fact that they now believe in Climate Change) is because they believe the only way they can seize political power is by causing division & hatred in this otherwise ” Lucky Country “.

The argument is won , the task now is to get on with it , 1 million solar panels already on Australian rooftops & millions more on rooftops all around the world. We ( human beings ) can do anything , if we only have the will to change.

carole/m

lou51

Gee whiz Sal pick up on terminology – hey guess what he was right and they did not get the land – but we did give it to the local Council.
BUT I would point out to you all YES we need to clean up as I said before and we can all “shriek” and carry on that we have Climate change and should reduce Carbon Emissions but where is the plan???????
Charging more for Electricity and Gas does not make the Coal Fired Power stations stop emitting.
Plus don’t forget the humungous amount of Coal we export to China – try going for a run in Hong Kong some days – the pollution is horrific.
O’h that’s OK at least here in Australia we have a Carbon Tax and we are such “goody two shoes” . BUT we will make all this money exporting Coal to pollute the rest of the world.It smacks of hypocrisy.
So how about we band together and ask that they make a plan to1. decommission our Coal Fired Power Stations and clean up,2. Start to drop exports of Coal.
Stop making this a Political Issue – also on this site a REAL Political issue ie if someone is NOT bagging the Libs then they get bagged. I am NOT lecturing just suggesting.

carole/m

The problem Lou51 is that it has been made into a political issue in this country by the LNP.

Try a positive , take away “Can’t ” & replace it with ” Can “.

I hate the word “Can’t ” , if there’s one thing I have learnt in my life it is that if you want to achieve / do something ,the first step is to believe that you “Can” . Without self belief , no matter how insane someone else thinks it is , you’ll never achieve anything worthwhile.

Sal

lou51

My mistake – I apologise – happy now?
Like I have said so many times before – can we get past all this “picky” pro labour anti liberal behaviour?
If I wrote on this site – bagging Tony Abbot – I would get that much support.
But if I write to ask where is the plan to decommission Coal Fired Power Stations in Australia – nothing but “Sarcasm” .

Jim Scott

Lou51 We cannot immediately shut down all coal fired power plants as that would cause massive chaos and great loss to many people. We can phase out coal but over the next decade and the cheapest way to do that is by putting a price on carbon that makes it more expensive than clean power and putting the tax money into renewables to speed the process. Hey isn’t that what we are doing?

lou51

I did not state that they should be closed immediately – I just want to know it is going to happen.
Yes I presume that is the “way we are going” like you – but when I have asked for the plan nobody responds i.e Greg Combet or Tony Windsor – sorry but until I see it in writing I am not convinced.
Plus I would presume a decommissioning to occur over the next 20-30 years – apparently we have 38 of them, and I would think the Government would have a plan to decommission the oldest & “Dirtiest” first.

carole/m

Most positive thing you can do is vote Labor in September Lou51.
Before you can close down coal fired power stations there has to be an adequate supply from sustainable sources. This is part of Labors plan.
In fact here in Victoria , there was a plan to close down “Hazelwood ” power station in 2006.
This did not proceed because the Liberal Party under Kennett decided to privatise the Gov. owned SEC.
Hazelwood is apparently the filthiest power station in the State & it’s still operating, thanks to Kennett & the LNP.
A price on Carbon seems like the best way to close this place down. Time will tell.

Rhoda

So instead of coal we use gas. If you think gas is more earth friendly than coal then think again. Fracking has the potential to be a whole lot worse for the planet than coal emissions.

They use 600 chemicals in the fracking fluid – mercury, lead, aluminium, radium – to name just a few. These chemicals are injected into pipelines with zillions of litres of water. I’ll leave the math to someone else. So the chemicals are mixed with the water which is pumped out of – let’s see – where does all this water come from that’s needed to harvest natural gas?

So the fracking fluid (chemicals + water) is used to ‘fracture’ the shale rock and release the gas. And then of course much of the toxic fracking fluid leaches out of the well into the ground and can’t be recovered. It is not biodegradable and has the potential to contaminate any groundwater as in rivers, creeks, waterholes nearby.

Not a scientist so that is onlyo my interpretation.

But I’d never use gas and that’s why. My every instinct tells me to keep those chemicals out of the ground and out of the water. My every instinct tells that an awful lot of water is needed to make fracking fluid and Australia doesn’t have a lot of water.

Gee

lou51

Plus I have to add – that if the power station is charged $23 per ton – and they pass it directly on to me – – the only person who wants to change is me – in my use of power. We have all become over the years aware to purchase power saving devices, globes and turn lights off, use less power.
As long as this “pass it on” remains the – Power Stations don’t have any pressure to close or change to natural gas,wind,solar.

Sal

Rhoda

We can’t move away from coal. Unless you want to start driving a horse and buggy. We can go gas but how it that earth friendly. Might as well stick with the coal. Least the coal stations are starting to reduce emissions and as time goes on new technology should reduce it further.

If we turn to gas then we will be starting at the bottom of another exploration frenzy with all the companies going for the profits and no one knowing what the outcome will be. Let’s stop this train leaving the station or we’ll have another environmental crisis on our hands. How many more do we need.

Garry

There are many scientists who dispute the doctrine of global warming. Their arguments are based on the interpretation of scientific data; their arguments are not defeated by scientific reasoning! They are shouted down. As for God’s existence, we are surrounded by evidence, the whole creation shouts it out! I do not reject science nor do I accept the way some people twist it to suit their dogma. Many people are going hungry because global warming fundamentalists are sequestrating their farmlands to grow fuel or carbon sinks. Where is the justice in that?

carole/m

There isn’t just one solution but many . It may require thinking outside the square .
Sources of energy can be , Solar , Gas , Coal , Wave Power , Wind Power , Hydro .

There’s an architect in America who has been building self sustaining homes in the desert out of garbage ( tyres / cans / bottles etc ) for the last 35 years , he’s called “The Garbage Warrior
The houses are completely “off grid ” ,
Power , sewerage , water , all recycled.

It’s not just the power source but more energy efficient houses & buildings & vehicles ; these things are already happening all around the World.

carole/m

carole/m

Dubai is building a whole new City which will be powered by a Solar Farm & all rubbish & waste water will be recycled .

I do remember more than 40 years ago ,looking through a display home in Melbourne that was also built to recycle water & use very little energy..
The ideas were around then but there was obviously no incentive to build them as power was quite cheap back then.

Sal

Garry

Sal, you could do a google search. Wikipedia has a list. You may also try to ascertain how man made carbon pollution at less than four percent of total can have such a devastating affect on our climate. You could also attempt to ascertain how many supporters of the warming religion have direct or indirect business interests in carbon trading!

Sal

Garry, thanks very much for your helpful suggestion for independent (Google) research. I would attempt this avenue of enquiry, however, I feel that the results would be less than adequate. I am aware that there are a number or “scientists” who claim expertise in this area and deny that climate change is human induced. However, you will find that not a single one of them is actually an expert in climatology and most certainly not currently publishing in this field. I am also a scientist and I could have some opposing opinions about all kinds of scientific topics, but it counts for zero unless I do research in those fields and actually publish the work in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You will also find that many of these “scientists” have links to big oil, coal, mining etc. Please see Merchants of Doubt and similar for details. If you’re looking for the real conspiracy theory in all of this, then there it is right there. Follow the smell of money.

In regards to your comment about the amount of carbon in the air, I will attempt an explanation. There is a thing called the carbon cycle. Some carbon is naturally released, some carbon is naturally stored. It is (or was) however in balance. We do need some CO2 in the atmosphere to create a greenhouse effect. This is what stops us from freezing to death. The problem is when you add more carbon to that system (from digging up and burning fossil fuels) and you get what’s called an enhanced greenhouse effect. The more CO2 you add, the more greenhouse effect. Just as you add more blankets on your bed, the warmer you get. Of course all of this is grossly oversimplified in an attempt for an average person to understand it. And here in lies the problem. In order for the average person to understand climate change, scientists have dumbed it down. The problem is that this then makes the average numbskull believe that they can truly understand all there is to understand about climate change via a simple Google search. Of course there are various other numbskulls (and people with ulterior motives), who are more than happy to provide a distorted, incorrect, version of what they believe to be the facts on climate change. I challenge every single climate denier out there to actually go to the scientific literature, read and understand this highly complex and specialised area of research.

helen b

Sal…how beautifully and simply written and yet redirecting Garry and all people who REALLY want to know, to go to the published scientific research.

I do not have this knowledge. I just follow the simplified version, but I accept what the majority of climatologists are saying.

Why can’t people get that they’re not ‘experts’ in anything and everything. Every day I remind myself ‘I know nothing’, which really keeps me open to new ideas and information. We can’t take it all in, but we do need a level of trust in scientific research. Science is so under-funded and yet offers us solutions to solving so many problems.

Sal

Thanks Helen. I believe that it’s a problem that is much bigger than just the one topic of climate change. Information is wonderful. I think it has liberated us. We have such incredible amounts of information at our fingertips. Unfortunately though we also have misinformation at our fingertips and we all need to become much more savvy in our use of the internet and which information we trust. Also, as I mentioned above, the enormous danger is believing that this information can make us instantaneous experts. The decline in people’s belief in true experts is very obvious in many fields and extremely concerning.

Andre

I think the vested self interests of climate change deniers, using outright lies and misinformation, are banking on the fact that you can fool some of the people all of the time. That’s all the percentage you need to grab power.

maryellen

so if they cant get the weather forecast right and so often is is not right how can they predict what is happening re climate change.
i am extremely wary when money is involved and i still dont see a concensus on climate change. some scientists are still sceptical.
how much greenhouse gas is emitted by volcanoes and bovine animals to name some sources?
this is like listeria hysteria.
a little knowledge is easily molded to fit the pattern.
is the glass half full or half empty?